Press photographers are now banned from shooting RAW.
What else should be changed in the technology the press uses to make them more honest?
can you translate this for people who don't give 2 shits about image types?
>>51713391
newspaper doesn't want to deal with 50+mb files for no reason and wants them preconverted to jpg.
It's like requiring you to submit things in a doc instead of windows 3.1's word perfect format.
Makes sense I guess. Aren't there better image formats they could use other than jpg though?
>>51713456
oh, ok cool.
>>51713488
There are. RAW would be perfect if there weren't a ton of proprietary formats. But if there were an open source, royalty free RAW, that would be the way to go.
But since they're going to convert to shitass JPG anyway, might as well cut out the middleman.
>>51713365
>banned from shooting raw
Sensationalist OP at his finest.
No, you dumb fuck. It does not ban shooting in RAW, just deters the submission of the format because of size concerns and advantage of camera's checksum feature / resistance to manipulation. In photojournalism, lighting can make all the difference. That's why it's unethical to manipulate photos outside of cropping/resizing.
>>51713456
>>51713500
NOT TRUE.
Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs.
http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/
>>51713560
To stop shooping, then?
>>51713560
Jesus Christ what the hell is that thing?
>>51713365
>banning RAW
Why? RAW is nothing format that let's you easier to Photoshop or lie, it's format that let's you easier to fix mistakes.
Colour correction is basically all you get from RAW file.
>>51713571
Yes. All Rawfiles need at least a little shooping and "is this image real or fake" is becoming too difficult to tell.
At any rate I'm sure this will piss off a lot of real photographers but make smartphone based ones very happy.
>>51713571
Yes. I hate when faggots who have no idea what they're talking about want to comment on shit without researching.
>“As eyewitness accounts of events covered by dedicated and responsible journalists, Reuters Pictures must reflect reality. While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news.”
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/reuters-bans-submission-of-raw-photos-our-photos-must-reflect-reality/
>>51713560
I don't get it. Is this like some attempt to stop photomanipulation?
This is actually pretty fucking stupid.
>>51713595
>All Rawfiles need at least a little shooping
No, They need adjustments.
RAW files is basically image with more information than an ordinary image.
Basically a lossless info from the sensor, banning it makes no sense.
>>51713583
This. I don't get it.
Reuters making such a deal about speed I think shows their true intentions. They'll get the jpegs first and the other news outlets will get the edited raws later thus beating the competition.
>>51713583
Yes, photomanipulation is out of control, it's distorting the public's perception of the facts.
>>51713608
>I don't get it. Is this like some attempt to stop photomanipulation?
Yes
>>51713605
"Pictures need to reflect reality"
By that definition, RAW is only format that they should use, because Cameras don't reflect reality, they capture light in very specific ways, that humans don't.
not adjusting a picture somethings means it wont look real.
>>51713651
NOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you can tell if a JPEG has been photoshopped but you can't tell if a RAW one has been photoshopped? Or what?
>>51713752
It's really just color manip on RAW, so I don't get it.
Any real manipulative edits are done with brushes, layers, and filters, that have fuck all to do with RAW.
>>51713651
it`s to prevent heavy use of photoshop you dingus
straight out of camera JPG.
Color balance is wrong, things slightly stretched, made too contrasty losing some details
>>51713812
What they ultimately use for publish print or web would be a jpg or png that comes from a raw I thought . They just dont need the raw file at all
>>51713854
Edited from RAW
Lens correction to remove distortion, color balance corrected, more details retrieved in the shadows (suit for instance) and highlights (screen).
Somehow Reuters doesn't like this version.
I don't see what's so difficult about defining "manipulative" edits. If you manually select (or use image recognition techniques to do the same kind of selection) some specific part of the image to adjust then it's manipulative. If you uniformly applied some operation to the entire image then it's not, because it's equivalent to adjusting the camera settings. The only exception is cropping, which is allowed despite being manual selection of a specific part of the image because it's equivalent to aiming the camera, which is unavoidable.
Basically, everything you can do in Darktable except for Drawn Masks (parametric is fine).
>>51713812
jpeg compression creates certain visual artifacts making the process harder, especially masking the areas where alterations were made, you have to use heavier noise filters to mask up the inconsistencies in borders between altered and unaltered areas. Which makes the whole image look more grainy, and no amount of noise reduction will help there.
I was under the impression that changes made to a RAW file in post were stored in the catalog, not in the RAW file itself, meaning that submitting the RAW file would result in the paper/company getting a straight out of the camera file.
However, most cameras, DSLRs in particular, have various filter and "artistic" settings that only work when capturing as JPEG (because they need to manipulate the file after capture).
Isn't this what they are saying they don't want to happen? Why are they banning the format the keeps the original data and accepting the format that can be manipulated in camera?
>>51713499
now we can embed viruses in the .jpg files and gain access to the newspapers and INFLUENCE THE OPINIONS OF THE READERS
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
>>51713893
You can decode JPEGs with a decoder that eliminates artifacts at the cost of lost detail. The lost detail won't matter if you're downscaling enough.
Example JPEG (heavily compressed version of >>51713877):
>>51713877
what if you shoppped him playing candy crush or something. that would be funny
>>51713978
But now you can't see what number he is tapping into his phone.
>>51713978
And decoded using
https://github.com/victorvde/jpeg2png
You can run it less aggressively if you want more noise+detail.
>>51713991
That's just downscaled and heavily JPEG compressed to be an example image for anti-artifact decoding >>51713993
>>51713877
yes, that does indeed look better, and i get what you're saying throughout this thread. but have you realized that perhaps the news outlets whether they're in print or online, don't care about quality? especially since their audience won't ever see a comparison of a raw file vs. a properly edited jpg
regardless of their motivations for this decision, it is entirely misguided and arbitrary
normies ree
>>51713945
You can submit the RAW along with "sidecar" file that includes the changes you've made. The raw file is pretty big, usually from 20MB to 75MB depending on the camera. Changes are not applied to the file so anything can be retred with no loss.
You can also export the changes you've made in the raw to a jpg file, with smaller size, and locking how the image looks.
Reuters now wants neither of those, and wants the worst of all; the jpg interpreted by the camera, instead of a human who knows what he shot.
>>51714016
sure, but they claim they care about reality.
Editing from RAW is the best way to create an image as close as possible to the truth.
>>51713365
This is only going to hurt ``truth & honesty'' by denying the opportunity to bring forward the unaltered original when the ``jpeg'' is contested.
>>51713560
So Reuters on suicide watch?
>take RAW photo
>edit it as you please
>save to .jpg
>twiddle the exif info, if that's even needed
>submit .jpg
how would they tell the difference?
>>51714059
but isn't "as close as possible to the truth" subjective? you're still editing the photo...sure to enhance it and make it look closest to maybe how it was irl. but you're still editing it. i don't see the big deal if they prefer the jpg as captured by the camera, even if it isn't aesthetically pleasing to the photographer's vision.
save the artistic merit and qualities of photography for the specialty photo articles online and in print that exist outside of the news outlets.
>>51714096
well, it's not like it's any more secure than submitting RAW's. you can manipulate that too. it's just smaller, and more universal which ostensibly is all they care about
>>51714059
Gj trying to explain this to a bunch of adrenaline junkies. "No RAW" allows for very little misunderstanding.
>>51714103
>implying journalists care about "facts" or "truth" above selling copy
>>51714103
Do you remember that dress that people couldn't decide between blue/black, white/gold?
That was mostly the result of an improper white balance, something you can fix in post easily but something you may not have time to measure and test in the field before taking your photos.
>>51714117
did you misquote me? that's what I was implying, that the news outlets don't really care anyway and are just making it easier on themselves by taking in a low quality jpg as captured from a camera.
>>51714126
>meme dress was improperly edited
who cares about viral meme shit? are you even the guy who was defending RAW files, if so you just took a big hit by bringing up that dress.
>>51714154
>>meme dress was improperly edited
No, it was shot with a cellphone camera that picked a shitty white balance, and possibly used a filter as well.
All things you can get from JPEG shots out of cameras.
>>51713617
Isn't raw need just gamma adjustment to look normal on sRGB?
>>51713854
>Call yourself a photo journalist
>Be too fucking self absorbed and retarded to spend fucking 2 seconds to manually correct color balance before pulling the trigger
>Be too fucking poor to actually use a half decent glass with a half decent camera that's able to auto correct distortion
>Be too fucking poor to even use a flash
B-BUT MY RAW!!!!
>>51714059
The major reasons behind this was speed, they want faster publishing times.
Considering the abundance of networked devices, it's pretty easy to send pictures straight away skipping the editing steps.
Most photographers are "artist" types and will wank too much on images in case of photo pulizer.
And we really don't care about the picture quality when it comes to news, they just need to convey the main subject and that's enough.
What happens in reality is dual raw+jpeg images are saved, thus preserving the possibility of using the better raw later if the pic is getting enough traction.
This rule is literally for idiots spending too much time and over editing photos before submitting.
src: I'm a photojournalist
Why even shoot in RAW though, if all it is is about color correction. Why not just edit the image afterwards?
>>51714257
Because teens nowadays don't know how to set up their camera without Auto+ mode
So they rely heavily on RAW filed and Adobe Lightroom to fix their half assed attempts at shooting photos.
>>51714216
Raw needs camera specific processing to even be an image at all. That's why raw handling software like lightroom gets updated every 10 minutes as new cameras are released. Avoiding that shitpile makes all the sense if your main business is reporting current events.
>>51714257
All raw images need to be processed before they can be viewed, be it live in software or after editing.
They are literally raw sensor data, so it contains much more information then could be presented via conventional formats.
>>51714270
>That's why raw handling software like lightroom gets updated every 10 minutes as new cameras are released. Avoiding that shitpile makes all the sense if your main business is reporting current events.
Luckily photojournalists don't change their cameras every 10 minutes or else those updates would actually mean something.
>>51713752
difference between zimzam being white and being latino.
>>51714021
>.gif
kekekekekkekekekekkekkekeke
>>51714257
>why not just edit the image afterwards
but that's exactly the point of raw.
editing from a raw file gets much better results than editing from a jpg.
Editing from the SOOC jpg is really re-editing. to fix the mess the camera has done. Editing from raw is creating the image from the sensor's data, without getting anything wrong in the first place.
>>51714263
it's faster to shoot if you don't worry about WB and perfect exposure all the time, knowing you can get it right with the raw afterwards. and that's especially true if you know how to actually operate a camera.
Yet another reason why the Apple iPhone 6S is the best camera anyone would have wanted.
>>51714370
From what I have seen the iPhone 6S has a chronic incorrect white balance problem.
>>51714361
>it's faster
>with the raw afterwards
Setting up the white balance takes literally less than 2 seconds. Lightroom alone needs 15 seconds to boot.
so much misinformation in this thread, I thought this was a technology post but you'd get better technological posts from /p/
>>51714433
>Setting up the white balance takes literally less than 2 seconds.
Sure, when you're in full control of your lighting.
Absolutely retarded. You can just take RAW photos and *gasp* convert them to JPEG afterward. You can even *gasp* move all the metadata tags over too.
>>51715113
That's exactly what this policy is trying to prevent and for a reason.
>>51713560
That's silly, do they believe that it is impossible to manipulate EXIF data to make it look like it wasn't shoop'd?
>>51715962
Professional cameras can crypto sign photos for verifiable authenticity.
>>51713456
>newspaper doesn't want to deal with 50+mb files for no reason
And they waited until 2015 when storage and bandwidth cost so little they might as well be free to ban it? Makes a lot of sense
>>51713365
>reuters
i only saw the thumbnail and knew they made some stupid shit like they always do.
>>51717520
No, who the fuck would accept RAW images, they have used jpeg like the rest of the industry.
TIFF files are acceptable in some circumstances.
The point of this is, RAW -> jpeg is bad, because A. it takes time, B. it allows too much artistic vision by default, C. it's the industry standard
So they send an email to freelancers, asking them to send jpegs saved by the camera straight and skip the raw conversion step.
They still can use RAWs if they want, as in most cameras can save jpeg+RAW simultaneously.
Effectively nothing changes, because most do this already, it's just a guide line to photojournalists and to remind few bad apples the differences of photojournalism and photography as an art.
Though the main reason for this is speed regarding photo->publication and that AP already uses the same rule.
>>51717892
I was only saying that the "raw is too big" argument doesn't make any sense, the others point still stand, raw should be used for photography, not reporting
but but but but
if anyone accuses you of manipulating the photo you can just hand over the original raw file
also what if something important happens in shitty light and there only happens to be one photographer there? They're hardly going to reject the picture just because he had to mess with the highlights and shadows.
>>51714361
>>51714433
You guys are both retarded. Knowing how to use your gear is important; I expect any photog to be able to set his white balance quickly (and know how to set in manually, not just those shitty presets that often won't work).
But there is a huge place for post-processing. I shoot RAW because I find it gives me more LATITUDE. I get a 2-stop exposure latitude benefit when I use RAW, especially when pulling details from shadows.
It isn't a one or the other sort of thing. It is great to be able to toggle your exposure in the field quickly; and sometimes this means using a semi-auto priority mode and just exposure comping.
Long story short: a private company can decide its submission standards. I do think it is particularly stupid. But really, no more trivial than places that would only accept medium format film, or submissions over a certain resolution.
>>51713456
That's not true at all.
News photography is very different from other forms of photography in that your only job is to capture newsworthy moments as you see them. While other areas of photography rely heavily on post-production to add to photographs (there's an relatively new adage that modern creative photography is 10% taking the photo and 90% post-production), in news photography altering the captured image at all (other than very basic cropping) is unethical.
There was a big deal made a while back about Instagram photos getting into newspapers for similar reasons.
>>51718081
I think everyone agrees on that, but this was blown out of proportion.
It literally was an email to resident freelancers to skip the raw step and save in camera to jpeg.
This enables much faster publishing times, considering you can send from the field.
This suggestion, yes that's what it really is, really is targeted to people who, say shoot an goal in a football game or an dismembered limb, return to hotel room with gear, edit for few hours and submit.
They want to skip the edit for few hours part, yeah they are photographers with pipelines, but the people on the field are diverse and not uniform art students that do what is told...
It's about hammering the idea of _not_ manipulating, and by default RAW needs manipulation to even produce an image.
So if you are outdoors, set your whitebalance accordingly and trust the defaults and sensors on the camera, vice versa for indoors and lighting.
I personally have wb setting made a quick button, so I don't have to go trough menus for it.
Just in case I need to use that photo instantly, if not I can always use the RAW and tweak it how ever.
Also AP has this rule as stated before and since we are talking about freelancers, it makes sense for Reuters to adopt the same set of guidelines.
>2015
>using a lossy image encoder
What is wrong with /g/?
>>51718112
Correct and it's much more then just taking a photo.
It literally is journalism, you are trying to capture moments in time that convey some information/value, be it factual or emotional.
Your interpretation on the matter is just captions.
Integrity and ethics play an huge role.
>>51713560
I don't get how are they gonna enforce this, what's stopping anyone from send a jpeg encoded from the raw? I don't think that the metadata of the camera are that hard to falsificate
>>51714238
hot damn that's some high quality bait.
>>51713365
Did you hear the news?
Press photographers are now banned from shooting Film.
They must only shoot instants like polaroids from now on.
"It's harder to fake a polaroid. Who knows what kind of tricks the photographer will make during developing."
"Oh, it's to make it faster. We don't really care about quality."
>>51714238
>in somalia
>presidential motorcade is going past
>just spend two seconds to fiddle with the colour balance
>point the camera at the president
>oh shit, he's dead already
shame i was fiddling with the settings, eh?
>>51713365
>Press photographers are now banned from shooting RAW.
Citation needed
>>51713846
You can't photoshop RAW.
>>51714257
>Why even shoot in RAW though, if all it is is about color correction.
It isn't though.
Apart from white balance, with RAW you can recover more detail from the shadows and the highlights, as well as finetune the contrast better.
Doing all this in a jpeg, is like encoding something in a lossy format with the wrong settings, and then re-encoding that lossy source with the correct ones.
Editing from RAW and saving as a jpeg, is encoding from lossless source, with the correct settings, into a lossy file.
>>51714433
>Setting up the white balance takes literally less than 2 seconds.
Yeah, with the only caveat that you get it wrong.
>Why?
Because the LCD on your camera, and your eyes that have adjusted to the ambient light, is a shit combination to judge proper white balanced compared to a properly calibrated monitor in a dark room.
>>51713560
hot slut
What if they shot in RAW
Fixed it up
And THEN uploaded it as JPG?
End result would be the same as with RAW, except Reuters wont get the original image
>>51713625
can't flim flam the zim zam.
>>51722823
fag
>>51722618
That's what they want to stop.
They want it quicker.
Don't forget da "dwendee foor our news saikol"
>>51722618
because pic related
